Bank of Baroda (Main Branch), Udaipur, UDAIPUR V. ACIT Circle (TDS), UDAIPUR

ITA 429/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1968 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.429/JODH/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 BANK OF BARODA (MAIN BRANCH), VS. THE ACIT C/O SATYAM SVG & CO. CA CRICLE (TDS) 15-18, DIAMOND PLAZA (FIRST FLOOR) UDAIPUR HIRAN MAGRI, SECTOR-5 UDAIPUR PAN NO. JDHBO1905B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 27/10/2016 OF CIT(A)-1 , UDAIPUR , PERTAINING TO 2012- 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE LD. AR SEEKING TIME. S INCE NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND MULTIPLE DEFECTS HAD BEEN POINT ED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON 22/12/20 16. THE ADJOURNMENT WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PR ESENT, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DEFECT MEMO HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13/01/2017 WHERE APART FROM THE OTHER DEFECTS SHORTAGE IN TRIBUNAL FEE HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 01/03/2017. ON THE SAID 2 DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED AS THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTION ING, NOTICE FOR THE PRESENT DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SEND TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13 /04/2017 WHEREIN ALTHOUGH THE ADJOURNMENT IS MOVED THE DEFECT REMAINS NOT CUR E. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS RE JECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE AFOREMENTI ONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO THE INDELIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE BY NOT CURING THE DEFECTS MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT SERIOUS IN PU RSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) A S LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTE D OUT IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 03/05/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03/05/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR